Christians are the salt of the world in this sense of the word: to salt the world means to fill it with the meanings of the Call; heal him by introducing him to the meanings of the Call; to call him on the path of the Lord, and this is carried out precisely as a response to challenges.

Clean people do not stain other people's faces.

The whole essence of human nature is in the words “what you give is yours.” Man is empty, he assimilates only by giving, because what he was able to give is the only thing he has assimilated, and everything that is truly assimilated strives to be given.

He who follows the right path, as soon as he takes it, will find his historical fellow travelers.

All people have halos, like saints, but not all people have met their halos.

Man is mortal because he does not choose immortality, i.e. God.

Beautiful labels stuck on ugly actions cannot change the essence. Either a fool, a scoundrel, or a madman can call ugliness beauty.

People are still diligently looking for bushes in which they can hide from God, from life as it is, from themselves, because the mugs of lies and deception, soap bubbles of illusions are so dear to them, and the truth is so hated.

Each of us is in our own hell, but heaven is common.

Everyone is looking for a place for themselves in another, but few are looking for a place for another in themselves, few are preparing themselves for another.

Wisdom is not in books, but in the Ray with which real books are written and read. One who has joined the Ray is wise, and one who has not joined is stupid.

People argue about the essence of things, giving more importance to their opinions about it than to the essence itself.

Everything that is real works. Everyone has their own gifts, and people act based on their gifts. And mummers imitate the action to hide their unreality. The mummers always intend to stick around for show.

Russian philosophy reminds me of Zeno's tortoise, which is ahead of Achilles only because it seeks not fractional knowledge, but the whole - that is, the Heart.

There is no need to dress yourself in humility, because God dresses a person in humility. Whoever has found the truth will also have the necessary form - humility. Humility is the clothing of truth. And whoever arbitrarily dresses himself in the clothes of humility in order to appear humble, looks unsightly and makes it difficult for himself to ascend to God.

Man is not a function, but a being.

A lot of noise is always about nothing: the more benefits, the less noise.

I'm afraid to know - those who know lie.

There are probably no mediocre people, but there are those who neglect their gifts, who are undeveloped and flat. After all, a gift is not so much a given as a given. That is, a person must be striving towards the gift, thirst for it, must grow, feeding on what he desires. Correct thirst and aspiration are the basis of everything.

There is information that, like garbage, clogs the brain with its uselessness. By accepting the unnecessary, a person takes space in his head from the important and extremely necessary.

Yuri Vladimirovich PUSHCHAEV was born in 1970 in the city of Frunze (now Bishkek) of the Kirghiz SSR. Graduated from the philosophical and philological faculties of Moscow State University. Lomonosov. Married, three children.

Yuri Vladimirovich PUSHCHAEV: articles

Yuri Vladimirovich PUSHCHAEV (born 1970)- Candidate of Philosophy, philosophy teacher, journalist, columnist for the magazine “Foma”

IF HE DON'T DIE...
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences Yuri Pushchaev in the project “Intelligentsia”

Times change, and we change with them. Perhaps today, for the first time in Russian history, being an intellectual has become so unprestigious - not only materially, but also spiritually. The intellectual today is not at all the ruler of thoughts, not the hero of our time, who is more likely an oligarch or a security official. These are the two current pillars of our Motherland, these are whose service today, being in the focus of public attention, is both dangerous and necessary.

The point is not that the current intellectual earns, as a rule, little or very little. For example, the pre-revolutionary Russian intelligentsia was generally very ascetic. It was the Soviet government, having destroyed the tsarist government and created its own, the people's intelligentsia, which made the Soviet “middle class” out of it. The fact is that the current intellectual has practically no influence on what is happening in politics and society. With the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of ideological censorship, the intellectual finally became decisively independent: today practically nothing depends on him. And this is a shame. For that former “teacher” intelligentsia, this is a real collapse. Because along with the claim to be an intellectual and moral guide, there was always a claim to power - at least ideological.

And now, for example, even the title of Vitaly Kaplan’s article “I Remain an Intellectual” sounds somehow completely different than, say, it could have sounded thirty years ago. Then the words “I am an intellectual” would be considered immodest. Have you called yourself an intellectual? Are you stuffing yourself into our mind, honor and conscience? Today, on the contrary, the admission “I am an intellectual” smacks of humility. “Yes, I’m a potato, a potato, just don’t hit me with your boots...”

In many ways, conversations about the intelligentsia, including our project, are similar to the dispute and litigation of a fairly confused subject with himself. This is an attempt by the intellectuals themselves, people from the intelligentsia, to learn lessons from history and never repeat fatal mistakes again.

In the now widespread call to “kill the intellectual within you,” there is an understatement. Kill - in the name of whom or what? There must be a positive goal first for destructive action to truly have meaning. Otherwise, it may turn out like with the now popular aphorism - “they aimed at communism, but ended up in Russia.”

Yes, the current marginalization of the intellectual class is largely deserved. Historical swings have thrown the intelligentsia a lot - from one extreme to another. From deliberate opposition to the authorities and the state in Tsarist Russia to complete support for the regime and opportunism in Soviet times, and back. From the former populism to the anti-populism of a large part of the current intelligentsia.

The pre-revolutionary intelligentsia is very different from the Soviet one, and the Soviet one from the post-Soviet one. A.I. spoke very well about the difference between the pre-revolutionary and Soviet intelligentsia. Solzhenitsyn in the article “Education” in the collection “From Under the Blocks.” Let the reader forgive the very long quote, but it’s worth it:

“Circular artificial isolation from national life. (Now there is a significant fusion, through official position.) Fundamental tense opposition to the state. (Now - only in secret feelings and in a narrow circle, ... joy from any state failure, passive sympathy for any resistance, but in reality - faithful public service.) Moral cowardice of individuals before the opinion of the “public”, insolence of individual thought. (Now it has been pushed far away by panicked cowardice in front of the will of the state.) The love for equalizing justice..., for the people's material welfare has paralyzed the love and interest in truth among the intelligentsia; “the temptation of the Grand Inquisitor”: let the truth perish if it makes people happier. (Now... let the truth perish, if at this price I and my family are saved.) Hypnosis of the common intellectual faith, ideological intolerance towards any other, hatred as a passionate ethical impulse. (All this passionate fullness is gone.) Fanaticism, deaf to the voice of life. (Nowadays it is listening and adapting to the practical situation.) There is no word more unpopular among the intelligentsia than “humility.” (Now they have submitted to the point of servility.) Daydreaming, great-heartedness, insufficient sense of reality. (Now - a sober utilitarian understanding of it.) Nihilism regarding labor. (Obsolutely) Unsuitability for practical work. (Fitness.) An intense atheism that unites everyone, uncritically accepting that science is competent to solve questions of religion, moreover, definitively and, of course, negatively; dogmas of idolatry of man and humanity: religion is replaced by faith in scientific progress. (The tension of atheism has subsided, but it is still spread throughout the mass of the educated layer - already traditional, sluggish...)..."

Now, many of the features of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia have returned to a certain part of the current post-Soviet intelligentsia. This is a tense opposition to the state, and dreaminess, and ideological intolerance, and moral cowardice in front of the voice of “public opinion,” and militant atheism. And what is truly new has been added - this is the rejection of not only the authorities, but also the people of Russia as such. If earlier the intelligentsia felt guilty before the people and sacrificed themselves in the fight for the people's cause, then part of the current intelligentsia will willingly sacrifice the people in the fight for their progressive cause. If pre-revolutionary intellectuals were able to lead the people, then today’s militant “liberals” cannot lead anyone, and either go into internal emigration or say: “we must get out of this country.”

However, in general, the overwhelming majority of the intelligentsia class has always considered itself too highly, and today’s catastrophic decline in its prestige is, to a large extent, a punishment for its former pride.

Indeed, it was through her efforts that the 20th century in Russia became the century of revolutions, not excluding the last one, twenty years ago. As noted by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov in “Vekhi”, the Russian revolution was an intellectual revolution, since it was the intelligentsia that gave the revolution its ideological baggage, along with its advanced fighters, agitators and propagandists. The intelligentsia, writes Bulgakov, “spiritually shaped the instinctive aspirations of the masses, ignited them with their enthusiasm - in a word, they were the nerves and brain of the gigantic body of the revolution.”

Sergei Kravets, in an interview with Foma as part of the Intelligentsia project, gave the following definition of it: “The intelligentsia is a part of society that is characterized by intellectual interests. These are people who need to understand the world around them not at the material and everyday level, but at the level of ideas, ideas, values, and on their basis they form a holistic view of this world.” The pursuit of knowledge is wonderful. To one degree or another, it is characteristic of all people, and an intellectual makes it his life calling. However, true knowledge must lead to the discovery of the boundlessness and mystery of the world, to intellectual and moral humility, to the Socratic “I know that I know nothing.” The Russian intelligentsia too often treated knowledge as a fetish and was proud of its intelligence, as if it were admiring the ring of power on its finger. By the way, in the words “you cannot serve God and mammon at the same time,” the latter is not necessarily understood as precisely material abundance. There may also be passion and preoccupation with intellectual wealth, proud admiration of one’s mind and erudition. Knowledge of the world should seem to lead to humility, but it turns out the opposite. Knowledge becomes not a way to recognize the world and true self-knowledge, but a means for self-exaltation. It’s like in the joke when a person goes into a pharmacy and says: “Give me pills against greed, and more, and more...”

But, on the other hand, it is very rare in history that there are completely negative phenomena. Let’s imagine that the intelligentsia, at least some of the intellectuals, have worked on their mistakes and got rid of those negative traits that were criticized at the beginning of the 20th century by the authors of “Vekhi” and the authors of the collection “From Under the Blocks” in the seventies. What will be left then? Education, a tendency to think, moral sensitivity, indifference or a calm attitude towards material wealth. Not the worst qualities, right? Provided, of course, that they are not overshadowed by pride and vanity. And these are probably the most common intellectual sins. The Fathers of the Church, by the way, said that the spirit of vanity is so varied, changeable and subtle that it is very difficult not only to guard against it, but even to recognize it in oneself. They compared it to an onion: no matter how many clothes you take off, everything will be too small, it’s so difficult to get rid of it. So, for example, the same indifference to material wealth can also be a reason for vanity.

However, against the backdrop of largely justified criticism of the intelligentsia, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater. Today in society, only money is increasingly being valued; education and medicine are being commercialized (and degraded). Therefore, it is very important not to lose among the social values ​​the material disinterest of the intelligentsia and its need for a higher meaning, to ensure that they do not completely disappear from the surrounding life - under the condition indicated above.

The intelligentsia is now going through probably the most difficult times in its history. Whether it will disappear completely or remain in some transformed form is still unknown. I would like to wish her (and all of us - intellectuals in some ways, not in others) genuine, and not imaginary, humility and good luck in the most difficult task in the world - working on oneself: “If a grain of wheat, falling into the ground, does not die, then there will be only one left; and if he dies, he will bear much fruit” (John 12:24).

Source: FOMA Orthodox magazine for doubters

CRISIS AND THE END OF THE AGE OF IDEOLOGIES

The peculiarity of the current crisis is global confusion. People feel insecure all over the world. Nobody understands what the right thing to do is. At the same time, nothing really terrible or irreparable has happened, at least not yet. But in the air there seems to be a feeling of slowly but inevitably approaching formidable events. As one ironic blogger on LiveJournal noted, “Before spitting it out, God chews us up slowly, like chewing gum.”

Something similar happened just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Already a year and a half before the August putsch (or the unsuccessful August attempt at counter-revolution) and the Belovezhskaya Agreements, it became clear that the country would soon become completely different. The collapse of the USSR, the painful breakdown of the old way of life and shock reforms also approached slowly, slowly, as they say, “with a delay.”

However, what does the current slow, drawn-out pace of the crisis actually mean? Maybe, in fact, everything is not so bad, and they are only scaring us in vain, as they say, deliberately “nightmaring” us? This is the task of the media - they constantly need a sensation. What could be clearer for the press than to produce apocalyptic forecasts stretched out over many months? But they will constantly keep the audience in suspense and will be perceived as a sensation every time. Semi-hysterical public attention is guaranteed. And then, you see, everything will be forgotten: it’s a terrible dream, but God is merciful.

Today's Russia is not an ideological country

Indeed, it is not possible for us to predict how current events will turn out. You cannot know your future history. Maybe everything will work out. However, in today's situation, what is surprising is the readiness with which we have begun to greet bad news. Confusion is everywhere, but perhaps nowhere is there such a mood that all this is not accidental. It’s as if here, in Russia, people in the depths of their souls, long before the officially declared crisis, were ready for a global, total breakdown.

This is due to the fact that with the fall of the Soviet Union we no longer had an ideological project that would be common to everyone. For some, the social ideal was liberal democracy, for some, Soviet socialism, for others, the Byzantine Empire, but there was no decisive general agreement on this issue. This was the reason for Putin’s defensive policy, mainly of a tactical nature, aimed at retention and stabilization. Today's Russia is not an ideological country. The feeling of deep-seated uncertainty was to a large extent due to the lack of a clear plan “how we can develop Russia”, with which the decisive majority of society would agree. Hence the uncertainty - from the uncertainty of the answer to the question, in what country and in what world do we live?

Today's crisis is a crisis of ideology as such

Now, suddenly, the deep-seated feeling of uncertainty and uncertainty was not unique to us. After all, if you compare the deadly Soviet crisis twenty years ago and the current, already worldwide crisis, this is what you can notice. Then we, having lost faith in the communist ideology, wanted capitalism. Confidence in the “beautiful distance” was based on the fact that there was a ready-made “assembly model” at hand - liberal democratic ideology. There was also a clear example at hand that everything would be fine - the West. There, people with their brains and hands created a “normal” life for themselves, and finally settled securely and comfortably on Earth, unlike us unfortunates. Therefore, that crisis took place in a kind of ecstasy, an intoxicating fever. In Germany, they joyfully demolished the Berlin Wall, erasing the border between East and West, and we rejoiced at this too. The musical background of the radical changes was Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” to the words of Schiller: “Embrace yourself, millions!”

Today, greetings to the approaching storm are not heard at all. This time, there is neither a ready-made ideological model at hand for assembly, nor a concrete example of where they know and can do it right. The system of the Western image and structure of life in general has failed. Not only the model of financial capitalism is called into question, but also the liberal democratic ideology associated with it. It turns out that it also does not guarantee a reliable existence on Earth.

However, the peculiarity of the “current moment” is that democratic liberalism is not being replaced by any other ideology that could act as an alternative to it on a global scale. After all, an ideology is only an ideology when its claims are universal, when it claims to the whole world, to the fact that only on its basis can one reliably settle down on Earth. Thus, the question arises: does the current crisis, the associated crisis of the liberal model and the absence of an alternative model, mean the beginning of the end of the new European era of ideologies in general?

What is ideology

The term “ideology” was introduced by the French philosopher and economist A.L.K. Destutt de Tracy at the beginning of the 19th century to denote the doctrine of ideas that will establish solid foundations for politics and ethics. Ideology as such is a new European phenomenon associated with an attempt to emancipate man from religion in Modern and Contemporary times. Its essence is that ideology claims to understand the logic of history, to penetrate this logic and to possess knowledge of how human society should be structured. Ideology is built by rational means, appeals to rational knowledge and proposes projects of one or another type of social structure, which humanity must implement on its own in real life. Therefore, ideology represents man’s attempt to securely settle down on Earth only by relying on his own strength and reason. In this sense, the concept of “Christian ideology” is no less an oxymoron than wooden iron. Naturally, I do not want to say that there cannot be societies where the dominant form of social consciousness will be Christianity or another religion. But Christianity is non-ideological and non-political. It does not focus on earthly self-sufficiency, but rather on abandoning it in the hope of God’s help.

At the same time, current calls to urgently create a new “fourth theory” do not really lead to anything. They only emphasize the current lack of “theory” as such and the confusion of man before the question of what to do now.

It can be added to this that it is no coincidence that politics is now degenerating. The current leading political figures do not look serious. Thus, Venezuelan Hugo Chavez or Bolivian President Evo Morales are rather a parody of the Cuban revolutionaries of forty years ago, and, for example, Nicolas Sarkozy is a parody of de Gaulle. Disappointment in politics and disappointment in ideologies are interconnected phenomena: it turns out that they cannot deliver what they promise. And accordingly, on the political scene, which is largely considered only by inertia as a sphere of rivalry and struggle of ideologies, the leading figures turn out to be semi-parodic figures. One only has to look at the previous US president or the current president. These are, let’s say, not the Roosevelts, not geniuses. For example, when looking at B. Obama, a persistent suspicion arises that he actually cannot do anything and does not decide anything, but is a purely image project.

Three main ideologies

Liberalism, communism and fascism are the three main dominant political theories, which, according to the French conservative Alain de Benoist, gave rise to many intermediate ideological movements in the twentieth century (1).

He notes that “the theories that appeared later disappeared earlier than others. Fascism, having appeared later than everyone else, died faster than everyone else. Then communism. Liberalism, the oldest of these three theories, is the last to disappear” (2).
Of the three major ideologies, liberalism is the least expansionist. Unlike communism, it leaves a certain space of freedom for religion. In liberalism as an ideological mindset in general there is some trust in the givens of life. As Friedrich Hayek wrote, “When we trace the cumulative effect of individual action, we find that many of the institutions on which human achievement is based have arisen and function without the agency of an inventing and directing mind; that, as Adam Ferguson puts it, “nations stumble over institutions that are really the result of human action rather than human intention” (3).

At the same time, one of the defining features of liberalism lies in a rather anthropological area - this is the understanding of man as a self-sufficient, autonomous being, filled with a “nervous sense of self-esteem,” in the words of our Konstantin Leontiev. Communism is a bet on the collective “we,” which for the philosophy of communism is the true basis and focus of existence. Liberalism is a bet on the individual “I” as its own master. Who is more effective in mastering the world - the individual liberated “I” or the collective, united “we” - this is one of the central points of divergence between communism and liberalism.

The mortal crisis of the ideology of communism and the communist system occurred 20 years ago. The collective “we” lost the battle to the individual “I” claiming autonomy, because the system of life based on the latter was at the same time more flexible, and at the same time more consistent with inner human vanity and pride. If under communism I personally still have to humble myself before the party and the state and meet their strict, draconian standards, then under modern capitalism I can lead almost any way of life. However, it seems that it turned out that Babylon will not last very long.

True, even if we are right in our forecast of the coming change of eras, it is clear that it will not happen all at once. The past does not always go away immediately; it seems to disappear or fall apart in parts. We shouldn’t expect that a new world awaits us tomorrow. The future will gradually gain its place, and the past will continue to resist and cling to life for a long time. So, for a long time and gradually, antiquity left, surrendered the battlefield, and then, almost a thousand years later, the Middle Ages.

Crisis is judgment

The word “crisis” comes from antiquity. In ancient Greek it means “judgment.” If the crisis is understood as a judgment on presumptuous humanity, then it is absurd to count on, as they say, “resolving the crisis,” on a successful “fight against the crisis.” The defendant is not capable of fighting the court, at least on an equal footing. The trial ends only with a verdict. Only in this sense can a court case be “settled.” And escape is also excluded here. In the sphere of being, as M. Bakhtin noted, there cannot be an alibi.

The final verdict of the current crisis trial has not yet been announced, as well as the punishment. But based on today’s example of an almost panicky perception of even the initial stage of future very probable shocks, we can conclude that man will not be able to establish himself firmly on Earth, it is impossible. Man himself knows this in the very depths of his soul, otherwise the current mass panic would not exist. The “end of history” proclaimed twenty years ago by F. Fukuyama and the irreversible victory of liberal ideology are as unrealistic as the bright communist future.

As for Russia as a non-ideological country, here you can, oddly enough, try to extract strength from weakness. What just recently seemed like an obvious disadvantage can paradoxically turn into an advantage. In the context of the end of ideologies, our lack of a dominant ideology gives us a greater degree of freedom than Western countries. We are not tied to any project, which means we have a wider horizon of vision, and therefore more opportunities for action.

In addition, we may not have yet had time to get used to the material prosperity that Western civilization organized for a historically relatively short time and which we have been trying to create for ourselves for a very short time. Never before has humanity, at least a significant part of it, lived as prosperously as in the second half of the twentieth century. But did anyone give a 100% guarantee that it would last forever? As for us, as Vasily Shukshin said with some anguish and at the same time with humility, “we’ve never lived well, there’s no point in starting.”

It does not matter to live materially - it is only for the better in the sense that this state of affairs continues to prolong history. In Christian theology, the last times are clearly associated with times of general material prosperity. A person of such an era is much less capable of both creativity and self-sacrifice.

However, a departure from the principle of ideology as an attempt at active self-organization on Earth does not necessarily mean a rejection of activity altogether. A merchant can be extremely active in his own way, an officer in his own way, a monk in his own way. The question is what the active activity is aimed at: is it an attempt at self-satisfaction and self-exaltation, or is it the pursuit of values ​​higher than earthly reference points.

2 Ibid. P. 28.

3 Hayek F. Individualism true and false // On freedom. Anthology of world liberal thought (first half of the twentieth century). M., 2000. pp. 389-390.

The famous “Ladder” of John Climacus, one of the main ascetic Christian works, was written at the end of the 6th century. Why is the book called that way, the word “ladder”? It is the Old Slavonic version of our word “ladder”. In the ancient Greek original, the name contains the word ἡ κλῖμαξ (klimaks). We will need this ancient Greek word in order to draw the reader’s attention at the end of the article to one curious and even curious fact from the history of modern European culture.

In general, the book is called this because it talks about the spiritual ladder or path leading from earth upward, to Heaven or to God. Therefore, this work is also called “The Ladder of Paradise” (Κλῖμαξ του παραδείσου, or Scala paradisi in Latin), which emphasizes the direction of the path, the fact that this ascetic ladder leads to Heaven, to Paradise.

Of the thirty chapters of “The Ladder” (in imitation of the fullness of the Lord’s age when He went out to preach), each is devoted to a specific Christian virtue. The book tells about the spiritual work of monastics who, only strictly following this path in the indicated sequence and not trying to jump over steps, must advance along the path of spiritual perfection right up to the very top of the ladder.

• Add a comment

The most original and pro-church thinker - Konstantin Leontyev (Yuri Pushchaev)

About faith and fear of God, philosophy and education, monasticism and family

January 25 marks the 185th anniversary of the birth of Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev, the great Russian thinker, writer and publicist. His uniqueness in the history of Russian culture is that he was, perhaps, one of the most original, original and profound, and at the same time the most pro-church thinker or closest to the Orthodox Church. It is no coincidence that shortly before his death he took monasticism in Optina Hermitage and became Brother Clement.

We bring to your attention a number of short excerpts from the works of Konstantin Leontyev.

Holiness

“I understand holiness the way the Church understands it. The Church does not recognize as a saint either the extremely kind and merciful person, or the most honest, self-controlled and selfless person, if these qualities are not connected with the teachings of Christ, the apostles and the saints. fathers, if these virtues are not based on this threefold totality. The foundations of the doctrine, the firmness of these foundations in our soul is more important for the Church than all the virtues applied to earthly life, and if it is said that “faith without works is dead,” then this is only in the sense that with strong faith in a person, the most vicious by nature or unfortunate by upbringing, there will still be deeds - deeds of repentance, deeds of abstinence, deeds of compulsion and deeds of love...”

• Add a comment

And again ideological mania, or How Patriarch Kirill is criticized (Yuri Pushchaev)

Alexander Tsipko’s article “And again the mania of grandiosity” in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, dedicated to sharp criticism of “the teachings of Patriarch Kirill about a special Russian civilization of solidarity,” is extremely surprising and at the same time revealing.

The Patriarch is accused by a former professional Soviet social scientist and author of books on the theory of socialism

It’s strange, although in some ways it’s even funny that the Patriarch is accused of not wanting to “move away from the unambiguous Christian moral assessment of Stalin as an undoubted villain” and “apology for the collective farm system” (!!!) by a former professional Soviet social scientist and author of books on the theory of socialism. Of course, Alexander Sergeevich sometimes experienced some career difficulties in Soviet times, and he sometimes came into conflict with the very disreputable officialdom of that time. Nevertheless, it seems that the Patriarch, who was not even a pioneer at school and whose grandfather went through 47 prisons and spent more than 30 years in prison, knows no less than Alexander Sergeevich about the negative sides of communism and the crimes of Stalinism. Coming from a priestly family, the future Patriarch, as a minister of the persecuted Church, learned all the “delights” of Soviet communism, as they say, literally from himself and his family. Unlike Alexander Sergeevich, who, although he writes that “he devoted many years, from his student days (and this was half a century ago), to the study of religious philosophy,” nevertheless specialized in historical materialism and defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic in 1985 “Philosophical prerequisites for the formation and development of Karl Marx’s teaching on the first phase of the communist formation.”

• Add a comment

What is liberalism right and wrong (Yuri Pushchaev)

One of the key words of the Gospel is the word “freedom”. In ancient Greek this word sounds like ἡ ἐλευθερία (elevtheria), in Latin - libertas. Freedom is the great gift that the Christian faith affirms and promises to give. Christ said: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” ( In. 8:31–32). And the truth in Christianity is Christ himself. It turns out that the one who is in Christ has learned the truth and is free.

Here, however, an interesting question arises: how does the understanding of freedom in Christianity differ from the freedom that the dominant worldview today, liberalism, proclaimed as its main value. He even took his name from the Latin noun libertas and the adjective liberalis - “free”.

Liberalism is today the ideological mainstream by whose canons the modern progressive world strives to live. And if freedom is just as important for Christianity, then why shouldn’t Christians also be called liberals, simply and simply? However, one cannot help but see serious contradictions between Christianity and liberalism. Their relationship today is becoming increasingly conflictual. And therefore it is very important for us Christians to be aware of the ways in which Christian freedom contradicts the freedom or freedoms that modern liberalism stands for.

• Add a comment

God: The Lord who has strength and authority (Yuri Pushchaev)

In modern and contemporary times, both in philosophy and in culture as a whole, the view of God only as a certain moral Absolute has become widespread. Such a God expects only moral behavior from a person and demands only love, but not fear or worship. This was the opinion, for example, of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. According to this mentality, the fear of God and worship of Him in any cult forms are superstitions that humiliate a person and deny his freedom. They say that God is not harsh and vengeful in order to inspire “fear and trembling.” By fulfilling the commandment of love towards people, you thereby fulfill all the necessary Divine commandments. God cannot demand anything else from you - otherwise He is not good and not merciful.

• Add a comment

God: Creator and Chief Poet (Yuri Pushchaev)

Nowadays, philosophers and social scientists, sociologists and cultural scientists argue a lot about the secular and post-secular, about whether we have entered a post-secular phase, when the rights of religion to public significance are again recognized, and it returns to the public space again. But what is secular time, which coincided in the history of new Europe with the dominance of ideas originating from the Enlightenment? Perhaps the defining feature of secularism is confidence in the self-sufficiency and autonomy (that is, self-law, existence in itself) of this world. In the secular era, the dominant worldview is according to which there is no higher reality behind the world that determines and guides it. In the Middle Ages, the world and all things existing in it were perceived, first of all, in the aspect of their creation, that is, as created and in this sense not self-sufficient, having the source of their existence in the transcendental God.

• Add a comment

Fasting: non-eating of people (Yuri Pushchaev)

Non-love is the most terrible intemperance

Today marks the beginning of Lent, and it would be interesting to see what the word “fast” meant in ancient Greek.

As for the Russian word, in a religious context it carries obvious and transparent associations with military service. The meaning of Christian life implies that a Christian must be a warrior of Christ, one of whose main virtues is fidelity (it is no coincidence that the words “faith” and “fidelity” are so similar, they have the same origin and a very close meaning). Then the time of Christian fasting is a time of special strictness in performing this service. A person, as it were, stands on guard, on a post, and all this time he should not sleep or otherwise weaken his vigilance. We can say that religious life and a person’s religious aspirations should intensify during Lent. This is a time when we must try even more to avoid temptations, a time for even greater repentance and greater attempts to create mercy.

The ancient Greek word for chastity speaks about this - ἡ σωφροσύνη (sophrosyne). Etymologically, it is formed from the adjective σῶς (healthy, unharmed, undamaged) and the noun ἡ φρήν (chest, heart, thinking, thought). It also indicates that chastity presupposes the correct state of internal spiritual life as a whole, integrity and unity of the individual.

Crisis and the end of the era of ideologies

The peculiarity of the current crisis is global confusion. People feel insecure all over the world. Nobody understands what the right thing to do is. At the same time, nothing really terrible or irreparable has happened, at least not yet. But in the air there seems to be a feeling of slowly but inevitably approaching formidable events. As one ironic blogger on LiveJournal noted, “Before spitting it out, God chews us up slowly, like chewing gum.”

Something similar happened just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Already a year and a half before the August putsch (or the unsuccessful August attempt at counter-revolution) and the Belovezhskaya Agreements, it became clear that the country would soon become completely different. The collapse of the USSR, the painful breakdown of the old way of life and shock reforms also approached slowly, slowly, as they say, “with a delay.”

However, what does the current slow, drawn-out pace of the crisis actually mean? Maybe, in fact, everything is not so bad, and they are only scaring us in vain, as they say, deliberately “nightmaring” us? This is the task of the media - they constantly need a sensation. What could be clearer for the press than to produce apocalyptic forecasts stretched out over many months? But they will constantly keep the audience in suspense and will be perceived as a sensation every time. Semi-hysterical public attention is guaranteed. And then, you see, everything will be forgotten: it’s a terrible dream, but God is merciful.

Today's Russia is not an ideological country

Indeed, it is not possible for us to predict how current events will turn out. You cannot know your future history. Maybe everything will work out. However, in today's situation, what is surprising is the readiness with which we have begun to greet bad news. Confusion is everywhere, but perhaps nowhere is there such a mood that all this is not accidental. It’s as if here, in Russia, people in the depths of their souls, long before the officially declared crisis, were ready for a global, total breakdown.

This is due to the fact that with the fall of the Soviet Union we no longer had an ideological project that would be common to everyone. For some, the social ideal was liberal democracy, for some, Soviet socialism, for others, the Byzantine Empire, but there was no decisive general agreement on this issue. This was the reason for Putin’s defensive policy, mainly of a tactical nature, aimed at retention and stabilization. Today's Russia is not an ideological country. The feeling of deep-seated uncertainty was to a large extent due to the lack of a clear plan “how we can develop Russia”, with which the decisive majority of society would agree. Hence the uncertainty - from the uncertainty of the answer to the question, in what country and in what world do we live?

Today's crisis is a crisis of ideology as such

Now, suddenly, the deep-seated feeling of uncertainty and uncertainty was not unique to us. After all, if you compare the deadly Soviet crisis twenty years ago and the current, already worldwide crisis, this is what you can notice. Then we, having lost faith in the communist ideology, wanted capitalism. Confidence in the “beautiful distance” was based on the fact that there was a ready-made “assembly model” at hand - liberal democratic ideology. There was also a clear example at hand that everything would be fine - the West. There, people with their brains and hands created a “normal” life for themselves, and finally settled securely and comfortably on Earth, unlike us unfortunates. Therefore, that crisis took place in a kind of ecstasy, an intoxicating fever. In Germany, they joyfully demolished the Berlin Wall, erasing the border between East and West, and we rejoiced at this too. The musical background of the radical changes was Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” to the words of Schiller: “Embrace yourself, millions!”

Today, greetings to the approaching storm are not heard at all. This time, there is neither a ready-made ideological model at hand for assembly, nor a concrete example of where they know and can do it right. The system of the Western image and structure of life in general has failed. Not only the model of financial capitalism is called into question, but also the liberal democratic ideology associated with it. It turns out that it also does not guarantee a reliable existence on Earth.

However, the peculiarity of the “current moment” is that democratic liberalism is not being replaced by any other ideology that could act as an alternative to it on a global scale. After all, an ideology is only an ideology when its claims are universal, when it claims to the whole world, to the fact that only on its basis can one reliably settle down on Earth. Thus, the question arises: does the current crisis, the associated crisis of the liberal model and the absence of an alternative model, mean the beginning of the end of the new European era of ideologies in general?

What is ideology

The term “ideology” was introduced by the French philosopher and economist A.L.K. Destutt de Tracy at the beginning of the 19th century to denote the doctrine of ideas that will establish solid foundations for politics and ethics. Ideology as such is a new European phenomenon associated with an attempt to emancipate man from religion in Modern and Contemporary times. Its essence is that ideology claims to understand the logic of history, to penetrate this logic and to possess knowledge of how human society should be structured. Ideology is built by rational means, appeals to rational knowledge and proposes projects of one or another type of social structure, which humanity must implement on its own in real life. Therefore, ideology represents man’s attempt to securely settle down on Earth only by relying on his own strength and reason. In this sense, the concept of “Christian ideology” is no less an oxymoron than wooden iron. Naturally, I do not want to say that there cannot be societies where the dominant form of social consciousness will be Christianity or another religion. But Christianity is non-ideological and non-political. It does not focus on earthly self-sufficiency, but rather on abandoning it in the hope of God’s help.

At the same time, current calls to urgently create a new “fourth theory” do not really lead to anything. They only emphasize the current lack of “theory” as such and the confusion of man before the question of what to do now.

It can be added to this that it is no coincidence that politics is now degenerating. The current leading political figures do not look serious. Thus, Venezuelan Hugo Chavez or Bolivian President Evo Morales are rather a parody of the Cuban revolutionaries of forty years ago, and, for example, Nicolas Sarkozy is a parody of de Gaulle. Disappointment in politics and disappointment in ideologies are interconnected phenomena: it turns out that they cannot deliver what they promise. And accordingly, on the political scene, which is largely considered only by inertia as a sphere of rivalry and struggle of ideologies, the leading figures turn out to be semi-parodic figures. One only has to look at the previous US president or the current president. These are, let’s say, not the Roosevelts, not geniuses. For example, when looking at B. Obama, a persistent suspicion arises that he actually cannot do anything and does not decide anything, but is a purely image project.

Three main ideologies

Liberalism, communism and fascism are the three main dominant political theories, which, according to the French conservative Alain de Benoist, gave rise to many intermediate ideological movements in the twentieth century (1).

He notes that “the theories that appeared later disappeared earlier than others. Fascism, having appeared later than everyone else, died faster than everyone else. Then communism. Liberalism, the oldest of these three theories, is the last to disappear” (2).
Of the three major ideologies, liberalism is the least expansionist. Unlike communism, it leaves a certain space of freedom for religion. In liberalism as an ideological mindset in general there is some trust in the givens of life. As Friedrich Hayek wrote, “When we trace the cumulative effect of individual action, we find that many of the institutions on which human achievement is based have arisen and function without the agency of an inventing and directing mind; that, as Adam Ferguson puts it, “nations stumble over institutions that are really the result of human action rather than human intention” (3).

At the same time, one of the defining features of liberalism lies in a rather anthropological area - this is the understanding of man as a self-sufficient, autonomous being, filled with a “nervous sense of self-esteem,” in the words of our Konstantin Leontiev. Communism is a bet on the collective “we,” which for the philosophy of communism is the true basis and focus of existence. Liberalism is a bet on the individual “I” as its own master. Who is more effective in mastering the world - the individual liberated “I” or the collective, united “we” - this is one of the central points of divergence between communism and liberalism.

The mortal crisis of the ideology of communism and the communist system occurred 20 years ago. The collective “we” lost the battle to the individual “I” claiming autonomy, because the system of life based on the latter was at the same time more flexible, and at the same time more consistent with inner human vanity and pride. If under communism I personally still have to humble myself before the party and the state and meet their strict, draconian standards, then under modern capitalism I can lead almost any way of life. However, it seems that it turned out that Babylon will not last very long.

True, even if we are right in our forecast of the coming change of eras, it is clear that it will not happen all at once. The past does not always go away immediately; it seems to disappear or fall apart in parts. We shouldn’t expect that a new world awaits us tomorrow. The future will gradually gain its place, and the past will continue to resist and cling to life for a long time. So, for a long time and gradually, antiquity left, surrendered the battlefield, and then, almost a thousand years later, the Middle Ages.

Crisis is judgment

The word “crisis” comes from antiquity. In ancient Greek it means “judgment.” If the crisis is understood as a judgment on presumptuous humanity, then it is absurd to count on, as they say, “resolving the crisis,” on a successful “fight against the crisis.” The defendant is not capable of fighting the court, at least on an equal footing. The trial ends only with a verdict. Only in this sense can a court case be “settled.” And escape is also excluded here. In the sphere of being, as M. Bakhtin noted, there cannot be an alibi.

The final verdict of the current crisis trial has not yet been announced, as well as the punishment. But based on today’s example of an almost panicky perception of even the initial stage of future very probable shocks, we can conclude that man will not be able to establish himself firmly on Earth, it is impossible. Man himself knows this in the very depths of his soul, otherwise the current mass panic would not exist. The “end of history” proclaimed twenty years ago by F. Fukuyama and the irreversible victory of liberal ideology are as unrealistic as the bright communist future.

As for Russia as a non-ideological country, here you can, oddly enough, try to extract strength from weakness. What just recently seemed like an obvious disadvantage can paradoxically turn into an advantage. In the context of the end of ideologies, our lack of a dominant ideology gives us a greater degree of freedom than Western countries. We are not tied to any project, which means we have a wider horizon of vision, and therefore more opportunities for action.

In addition, we may not have yet had time to get used to the material prosperity that Western civilization organized for a historically relatively short time and which we have been trying to create for ourselves for a very short time. Never before has humanity, at least a significant part of it, lived as prosperously as in the second half of the twentieth century. But did anyone give a 100% guarantee that it would last forever? As for us, as Vasily Shukshin said with some anguish and at the same time with humility, “we’ve never lived well, there’s no point in starting.”

It does not matter to live materially - it is only for the better in the sense that this state of affairs continues to prolong history. In Christian theology, the last times are clearly associated with times of general material prosperity. A person of such an era is much less capable of both creativity and self-sacrifice.

However, a departure from the principle of ideology as an attempt at active self-organization on Earth does not necessarily mean a rejection of activity altogether. A merchant can be extremely active in his own way, an officer in his own way, a monk in his own way. The question is what the active activity is aimed at: is it an attempt at self-satisfaction and self-exaltation, or is it the pursuit of values ​​higher than earthly reference points.

2 Ibid. P. 28.

3 Hayek F. Individualism true and false // On freedom. Anthology of world liberal thought (first half of the twentieth century). M., 2000. pp. 389-390.

The majority of our fellow citizens (56%) regret the collapse of the USSR. More than half (51%) believe that it could have been avoided. And, also unexpectedly, more than half of Russian residents (53%) positively assess Lenin’s role in the history of the country. All this is data from a sociological survey conducted by the Levada Center in the last days of March this year. What are the reasons for the obvious nostalgia for the Soviet majority of residents of post-Soviet Russia?

By the way, the results of this sociological survey again confront us with an obvious historical paradox that has dragged on for more than 25 years (and there is no end in sight): for some reason, in our generally left-oriented country, a right-wing liberal course is being pursued in domestic politics, and internal and economic affairs are led by pronounced liberals.

But one way or another, this survey is another confirmation that the Soviet period and its achievements can no longer be erased from the history of the country. Moreover, they cannot be erased from our present and our life today. After all, we still live mainly due to the achievements of the Soviet era: the nuclear shield, raw materials and industry built in Soviet times, a huge part of culture, under the name of Soviet, has already entered the history of Russian culture, etc.

Because what has been created over the past 25 years that we could be seriously proud of? Perhaps there is only one thing: we have not yet fallen apart and have not completely lost the country and ourselves, we are still alive, holding on to the very edge of the abyss. Total rejection and black-and-white criticism of the Soviet era would not have looked simply inadequate if over the years we had created at least something of our own that would now significantly keep us afloat. But in the current conditions, no matter how principled grumbling towards the Soviet, which completely does not notice its achievements, is similar to the ungrateful attitude of a not very smart hanger-on towards his decrepit breadwinner.

Moreover, it is unlikely that people nostalgic for the USSR will miss dreary party meetings, much less Stalin’s repressions and persecution of dissidents. It is unlikely that they are convinced supporters of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think they remember with pleasure something else: accessible, high-quality education and free healthcare, social security and care for children, outstanding cultural achievements and the absence of vulgarity gushing from the television screen. Alas, in Soviet times, white and black, good and evil were too closely intertwined, and in a fit of nostalgia, no matter how strong, we should not forget about Soviet atheism and ideological dictatorship. This house was built on a shaky, false foundation because it was based on Marxist ideology. That’s why he collapsed, and with such “fury and noise.” Our suffering today is in many ways retribution for the sins of apostasy and gullibility committed by our ancestors at the beginning of the 20th century and at the end of the 20th century by our fathers, who also chose the wrong way out of the wrong situation. But it would also be a big mistake to forget about the positive aspects of the Soviet era, so that we do not fall into the sins of a selective attitude towards history and historical blindness.

“Sympathy for the Soviet means that consumer psychology and ideology have not yet completely conquered our people”

It is also interesting that people voting for the departed USSR should remember, in general, not at all luxurious Soviet life with its generally accessible minimum of the most necessary things, which, on the other hand, everyone had. Sympathy for the Soviet, among other things, means that consumer psychology and ideology have not yet completely conquered our people (although too much has already been passed along this sad path). However, as before, many people with their hearts and souls would choose a rather ascetic Soviet life, rather than the current brilliant “temptation” and seemingly abundance, which actually hide depression, nerves and emptiness.

The USSR is...

This gives rise to another paradox that concerns us as believers: understanding perfectly well that the Soviet years, especially the early ones, were times of terrible, unprecedented persecution of the Church, we must, nevertheless, approach the Soviet period more clearly, dividing and separating each other from each other different phenomena and entities. It is clear that there can be no compromise with communism as an ideology (which has actually been dead for a long time). Not so with living people. Separating the sin from the sinner, we cannot help but notice the positive things that were in them: sacrifice, desire for good (even if misunderstood), lack of acquisitiveness, etc. It is possible that the time is gradually coming when radically transformed socialism on Russian soil, to the extent that it renounces atheism and radical revolutionism, can enter into an alliance with the Church against aggressive global capitalism. Against the ideology of militant consumerism and radical individualism with its denial of any higher values ​​​​set by a person who was not actually completely “liberated”. At the end of his life, the outstanding Russian thinker K.N. thought about such a union that it is not impossible. Leontyev, who considered socialism to be a reaction of the future that had not yet realized itself. And at least today on Russian soil, the so-called communists a la Zyuganov are quite a conservative force, and an alliance with them is quite possible.

In general, it seems to me that the current “longing for the Soviet” expresses the desire of a huge part of our people for historical uniqueness. These are memories of the times when we were different from everyone else, and even claimed to set goals and meaning for the whole world, and were a living example and model for almost half of humanity. The results of this survey are a kind of small rebellion against today’s increasingly homogenizing globalization and general liberalization. Therefore, they can be interpreted in such a way that this is not at all a desire to return back to the USSR. Rather, it is a desire to go back to the end of the 80s in order to make a different choice and really choose ourselves, and not those deceptive and destructive illusions that almost led us all to the final collapse of historical Russia in the 90s.